Open Space... or Public Safety?

As Metro considers whether to ask area voters for a bond to purchase open space, voters are increasingly saying "no" to new taxes.

I believe that the similar 1995 bond was, among other things, proof that voters are willing to pay for what they want. The anti-Measure 37 crowd has long insisted that government has to confiscate land (through uncompensated regulatory takings) rather than pay for what it takes.

One reasonable concern - brought up in the Oregonian article - is that voters do have an upper limit for how much they're willing to pay, and sometimes the last person to ask for money gets told "no" regardless of how worthy the purpose may be.

Will voters pay for open space, only to say "no" to other demands like public safety or local school options? Will they see this as a chance to buy open space now before the price goes up? Or will public safety get a "yes" and open space a "no"?

I have no crystal ball on this. I'm expecting the open space bond to pass. But I expected the Washington County public safety levy to pass in 2004, and it didn't.

I think the wisest course of action includes these steps: (1) trust the voters and abide by their wishes, (2) encourage economic growth that grows the pie and expands the tax base, so we'll have the money to pay for government services, and (3) relentlessly look for ways to save money and do more with less in delivering government services. Indianapolis managed to increase services for years while cutting taxes, and ended up with more cash at the end than at the beginning.